Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant

October 9, 2008 by richardabanes

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Appeals Court Rules Mormon Church Is Outside Protestant Christian Faith

In a remarkable decision an Arkansas appeals court ruled that the Mormon Church is outside of the Protestant faith. The decision came in a divorce decree contempt case by the Arkansas Court of Appeals on October 8. According to an October 9 Arkansas Democrat Gazette piece,

“Joel Mark Rownak and Lisa Monette Rownak agreed in their 2005 divorce to raise their children ‘in the Protestant faith.’ The decree bars them from promoting another religion without the other’s consent. In May 2007, Benton County Circuit Judge John R. Scott found Joel Rownak in contempt of that decree based on evidence that Rownak had ‘candidly acknowledged’ promoting the Mormon faith to his sons.”

Interestingly, Mr. Rownak, who is a Mormon testified that the Mormon faith is outside of the Protestant faith. The court, based on Mr. Rownak’s testimony and “evidence to that effect from the [Mormon] church’s Web site” ruled that the Mormon faith was indeed outside of the Protestant faith and therefore found Mr. Rownak in contempt of the divorce decree.

The significance of this ruling of course is that both an active Mormon (Mr. Rownak) and an appellate court both agree that Mormonism is not a Protestant church. The other significant aspect of this ruling is that the court has made a ruling on a theological matter. While the ruling was technically on a divorce decree contempt case, the grounds for the decision were theological.

Original Blog News Post – Watchman Fellowship (please visit).

+ + + + + + + + + +

VERY SIGNIFICANT…….comments welcome. This ruling clearly agrees that Mormonism is outside Protestantism. And Mormonism is certainly not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The ruling, of course, fails to answer the question: What is Mormonism?

Given the fact that it is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, one can naturally extrapolate that Mormonism is not Christian. And that is something most apparent when one looks at the various doctrines advanced by Mormonism, which at almost every turn, conflict with the basic, foundational teachings of Christianity. This is a landmark decision that will have implications.

How will Mormons respond?
How will Mormons categorize themselves?
How will Mormons be viewed by the rest of society?

A Christian is not merely someone who holds a healthy respect and affinity for the historical person of Jesus Christ. Nor is a Christian someone who simply acts lovingly, gives generously, or behaves graciously. A “Christian” is someone who embraces as their lord and Savior the Jesus of the Bible. This court ruling shows that the Mormon Jesus and declaration of faith is not consistent with the Jesus and declaration of faith found within Protestantism.

R. Abanes

For more information on Mormonism, see my two books on the history of Mormonism (ONE NATION UNDER GODS) and the doctrines/beliefs of Mormonism (INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM). Synopsis, Reviews and Excerpts are available at PoP cUlTUre MiX.

_______________________

Posted in Mormonism | Tagged Apologetics, Book of Mormon, Christianity, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, cults, Discernment, Joseph Smith, LDS, Mormonism, Richard Abanes, Salt Lake City, Utah | 79 Comments

79 Responses

on October 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm Randall

I don’t see how this says that Mormon’s aren’t Christian, just not Protestant.
on October 9, 2008 at 12:48 pm richardabanes

I added a few explanatory notes.

RA
on October 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm ditchu

Do you see a differance between Christianity and Prodenstantism?
on October 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm richardabanes

Do you see a difference between Christianity and Mormonism?
on October 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm Randall

It seems to me that given the fact that Mormonism is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, one can also extrapolate the Mormonism is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. As to my knowledge, the LDS church has never tried to claim that they are any affiliate with any of these sects. On the contrary, they have constantly made statements that they are not. So I assume that the church will respond in the same way they have been doing already. I also think that Mormons have always tried to view themselves as a “Fourth” branch of Christianity, though there are hundreds of different sects in the Protestant branch of Christianity with many of their own views of what the Bible says about what they believe.
on October 9, 2008 at 3:15 pm richardabanes

hey R,

The RC, EO, and P branches of Christianity (despite the varieties within – denominations) all hold to the foundational distinctions of “Christianity” that are NOT shared by Mormonism. These are beliefs that date back to the very beginnings of Christianity:

1) God’s Word is reliable/trustworthy (as opposed to the LDS view that the Bible is only reliable as far as it agrees with the revelations of Joseph Smith and the words of LDS Prophets);

2) there exists only one TRUE God anywhere, not just for this planet (i.e., monotheism as opposed to LDS polytheism);

3) Jesus was uniquely the Son of God (as opposed to LDS teachings that he was God’s LITERAL firstborn, and as such is merely our elder brother);

4. Jesus is certainly NOT the spirit-brother of Lucifer (as opposed to the LDS belief that he is);

5) Jesus was virgin born (as opposed to the official, yet rarely discussed, long-standing belief that Jesus was conceived as a result of physical, sexual relations between Heavenly Father and Mary, his spirit daughter).

I could go on, but that’s probably enough.

peace,

RA
on October 9, 2008 at 4:32 pm ditchu

As I see it Mormonism is a sub-set of Christianity, as is Protistantism and Catholism.

-D
on October 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm ditchu

Also how do the penticostals fit in your view of Christianity?
on October 9, 2008 at 5:11 pm richardabanes

Pentecostals = Christians.

Mormonism is not a sub-set of Christianity per the writings of its founder Joseph Smith, who declared that so-called “Christianity” of his day (early 1830s) was COMPLETELY apostate — they had a wrong concept of God, a mangled/perverted Bible, a skewed understanding of Jesus, a faulty idea of salvation, and all their ministers were corrupt. This is why Mormonism began as the “restored” Christianity — i.e., the true Christianity that had been lost. Early Mormons, including its leaders, sought very hard to distance Mormonism from Christianity by attacking it mercilessly.

Only in the recent era, starting post-1890 or so, and especially after 1978-ish, the Mormon church has been seeking to blend into society as just another “Christian” denomination by use of misleading statements, unclear language, and undefined terminology.

Despite the PR, however, as you can see from the doctrines I note, they hold very different views from the historic Christian church. You might want to take a look at this chart of beliefs.

If you are interested in reading in-depth material to see how different Christianity is from Mormonism, I would hope that you read the above two books.

R. Abanes
on October 9, 2008 at 6:49 pm Randall

Can you get me the source on how Christ was conceived according to Mormon beliefs? As I am unaware of anything that says “sexual relations”. Mormons believe in a Virgin Mary, you can look in the Book of Mormon for that. Both Alma and Nephi refer to Mary as such. Also, the LDS view on the Bible is such that if it is translated correctly then we believe it is the word of God.
Also, according to the Bible, you can’t say that Lucifer is “certainly not” the spirit brother of Jesus; as for the beginnings of Christianity, do you mean the Nicene creed that came about in the fifth century, that supposedly defined how that church was to operate, or when the Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?
on October 10, 2008 at 6:20 am Jay

The ruling that Mormons aren’t part of the Protestant Church is not very mind blowing to most people, especially not to Mormons themselves. I don’t think they ever claimed to be a Protestant faith. I think this father probably has a good chance at having the ruling over turned by appealing to his constitutional right to freedom of religion. If his children are going to be with him on the weekends they will go to the Mormon Church with him and he will be accused of promoting a non-protestant church. The same could be said if he had pictures of a Mormon temple in his home or listened to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the car with his children. I seriously doubt that the ruling would hold up if appealed further.

As for your tick marks about Mormon beliefs, they show a superficial knowledge of the LDS faith, but some of the points are misrepresented to the point that an LDS member might scratch their head and say “I didn’t know I believed that”.

2) there exists only one TRUE God anywhere, not just for this planet (i.e., monotheism as opposed to LDS polytheism)

Fact: Mormons believe that the God of this world is the God of innumerable worlds that He created not just this one.

3) Jesus was uniquely the Son of God (as opposed to LDS teachings that he was God’s LITERAL firstborn, and as such is merely our elder brother);

Fact: Mormons don’t believe that Jesus is “merely our elder brother”. They believe he is their Savior from sin and without him we would be lost forever. Christ is unique, Mormons believe he is their elder brother, but that is very far from the main station Christ holds in their theology.

5) Jesus was virgin born (as opposed to the official, yet rarely discussed, long-standing belief that Jesus was conceived as a result of physical, sexual relations between Heavenly Father and Mary, his spirit daughter).

Fact: Mormons believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Yes, it is true that Brigham Young advocated the theory you speak of, but it has not been taught since Brigham Young and is not taught currently in the Mormon Church. The vast majority of LDS members would agree that this is highly speculative at best (as are many of Brigham Young’s statements) and would agree with the Biblical account, not with Brigham Young as you imply in your 5th point.
on October 10, 2008 at 7:28 am richardabanes

Randall: Can you get me the source on how Christ was conceived according to Mormon beliefs? As I am unaware of anything that says “sexual relations”.

RA: Then, you need to read your early prophets — who’s teachings have not been repudiated. It’s all in my book (INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM) complete with documentation, under “Jesus, Mary, and Elohim” pp. 184-186. And sorry, but I simply can’t reprint my book here for every point raised. But this concept was taught by your prophets and apostles. This is not to say that she had intercourse with any “mortal” man (Erastus Snow, 1878), but that she certainly had intercourse with an “immortal” man. As Bruce McConkie stated, Christ “was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 547). Sooooo, tell me, How are mortal men begotten by mortal fathers? (I think all of us hear know about the birds and the bees)?

If you do not believe this, then okay, but then you stand at odds with your own church and the teachings of of your founding apostles and prophets.
_________
Randall: Mormons believe in a Virgin Mary, you can look in the Book of Mormon for that.

RA: Of course, given the above information, “Virgin Birth” means something totally different. Virgin has been redefined as a woman who does not know sexual relations with a MORTAL man. Elohom, of course, is an IMMORTAL man. Again, If you do not believe this, then okay, but then you stand at odds with your own church and the teachings of of your founding apostles and prophets.
_________
Randall: The LDS view on the Bible is such that if it is translated correctly then we believe it is the word of God.

RA: Practically speaking, this breaks down to you not accepting the Bible where it conflicts with the D&C, BoM, and PGP. If the Bible is inaccurate, then please provide an LDS translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the New and Old Testaments. And, as we know, there is no translation of ANY kind of the BoM, since Joseph’s plates aare not available for inspection. I urge you to read more information on all of these issues, my friend.
________
Randall: Also, according to the Bible, you can’t say that Lucifer is “certainly not” the spirit brother of Jesus;

RA: We;re just getting into the no it’s not/yes it is – no it’s not/yes it is game.
________
Randall: … as for the beginnings of Christianity, do you mean the Nicene creed that came about in the fifth century,

RA: Uhm, first of all, no, I’m not referring to that at all. I am referring to the Bible (rather than the early-mid 19th century writings of Joseph Smith, a convicted and well-known worker of magick, spells, incantations, and occult money-digging). Secondly, the Nicene Creed was penned in 325 a.d., which is 4th century.
_______
Randall: … that supposedly defined how that church was to operate, or when the Protestants broke away from the Catholic church?

RA: Friend, seriously, please read and study non-LDS produced writings on church history.

I wish you a good day and rejoice in those things we share in common regarding ethical and moral issues, which are so important in our day.

peace,

R. Abanes
on October 10, 2008 at 7:46 am richardabanes

Jay: As for your tick marks about Mormon beliefs, they show a superficial knowledge of the LDS faith,

RA: My friend, I would venture to say that unless you are a very rare Mormon, I have read more about Mormonism than you have. But that is beyond my knowledge, of course. let me assure you, however, that “superficial” would not describe my understanding or Mormonism. I would agree with you that some well-meaning folks do express criticisms of Mormonism, but do so without much personal research or knowledge. I am not one of those people.
_____________
Jay: Fact: Mormons believe that the God of this world is the God of innumerable worlds that He created not just this one.

RA: Partially true, Jay, You failed to respond, but instead, latched on to the one isolated fragment of my sentence that read “for this planet” and turned it into me saying that Elohim was not God for other worlds — which was not my intention. I was merely repeating what has been repeated to me by numerous Mormons. But lest I be misunderstood, yes, Elohim, is also God over many worlds. But he is not — AS YOU KNOW — the only god in existence. There are other gods and other worlds ruled by those other gods, but we have nothing to do with them. This is polytheism. And Christians are monotheistic — i.e., there exists only one God — period. There is only one TRUE God in existence.

Please don’t cover tracks or post bunny trails. It doesn’t help dialog.
_____________

Jay: Fact: Mormons don’t believe that Jesus is “merely our elder brother”. They believe he is their Savior from sin and without him we would be lost forever. Christ is unique, Mormons believe he is their elder brother, but that is very far from the main station Christ holds in their theology.

RA: Let’s stop mixing words and playing semantics, Jay, which is what I have found Mormons like to do. The bottom line: The Jesus Christ Mormons exalt as Savior is of a radically different origin, nature, and character than the Jesus Christ exalted as Savior by Christians. Please, don’t make me list dozens of proofs.
_____________

Jay: Fact: Mormons believe Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.

RA: See the LDS definition of “virgin” above.

Jay: Yes, it is true that Brigham Young advocated the theory you speak of, but it has not been taught since Brigham Young and is not taught currently in the Mormon Church.

RA: First, Brigham Young taught this as doctrine, not some little theory on the side. Second, it was taught by multiple prophets and apostles all the way up into the 20th century, until it was sort of driven under ground as something to talk about because people started getting wind of it. Please read INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM, pp. 184-186 for documentation of that.

Jay: The vast majority of LDS members would agree that this is highly speculative at best (as are many of Brigham Young’s statements) and would agree with the Biblical account, not with Brigham Young as you imply in your 5th point.

RA: If the vast majority of Mormons would agree with the biblical account, then that is accepted and fine by me. But it marks a departure from original LDS teachings, and something needs to be said to phase out that belief from the minds of all Saints. It was done with polygamy (as practiced on earth at least). It was one with Blacks and the priesthood. It could certainly be done with an official statement on the Virgin Birth. Of course, the words of the prophets/apostles would have to be relegated to just “theory” as you put it, which then opens up a whole different can of worms since it was so widely taught and believed by the early Saints.

peace at ya,

R. Abanes
on October 10, 2008 at 9:59 am ditchu

“undefined terminology”?
Like what Christian and Christianity? Look it up in Webster and you will find a working Definition that allows for many Faith groups to be covered under the terms, including Mormonism.

It is strange to me that declairing Mormonism not Protestant makes them un-Christian, However, Penticostolism is Christian (but not Protestant).

Yes, we are differant from the other groups and that makes us distinct amoung Christianity, but each group has their unique claim, or else there would be no way to devide them into these groups.

Good day,
-D
on October 10, 2008 at 10:18 am NOYDMB

R. Abanes.
What you write about LDS people is dishonest and shows a severe lack of knowledge. You discredit all Christians with your venom. God have mercy on you. I pray that God will help turn you from your wicked ways just like I pray he’ll turn me from mine.
on October 10, 2008 at 10:20 am NOYDMB

While LDS do not accept such non-biblical words such as infallible, we do believe that the Bible is the word of God. No where in the Bible does God close the canon, that is a work of man, and not a work of God.
on October 10, 2008 at 10:23 am NOYDMB

All LDS believe that the same God that all Christians (including LDS believe in) created worlds without number. He is our God, we are His people. LDS are not polytheists. Polytheists believe in multiple Gods that quarrel with one another for power. LDS believe that there is only “one God with whom we have to do”. We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Nowhere do LDS believe that God is only the God of this world.
on October 10, 2008 at 10:29 am NOYDMB

While it is true that other Christians do not know about spiritual relations, it would be dishonest to say that Christians as a whole do not believe there is a spiritual relationship between all beings. On the Christian side there can only be agnosticism, because the Bible doesn’t specifically say. No where do LDS people include the fact that all people are spiritual children of God the Father (including His only Begotton Son Jesus, you, me, and even Lucifer). This is a classic poisoning the well argument. Instead of looking at our merits and beliefs, Arbanes is confusing the matter by talking about something that LDS rarely talk about. Why don’t we talk about them, because it makes no difference to us that the ultimate in Righteous (Christ) was a spiritual brother to the ultimate in Sin (Satan). What matters is that the ultimate in Righteousness (Christ) saved all men who will have faith in Jesus, Repent, and be obedient unto baptism.
on October 10, 2008 at 10:32 am NOYDMB

LDS do not believe that Jesus is merely our elder brother. LDS also believe that Jesus is uniquely the Son of God in a way that no other being is. LDS also believe that He is God’s literal firstborn. The scriptures us the term only-begotten.
on October 10, 2008 at 10:52 am richardabanes

NOTICE…….. comments by NOYDMB have been suspended due to insulting language used in comments found in moderation….

Sorry. We play nice here, people. We all play nice, or we don’t play at all.

NOYDMB, you are more than welcome to go read my two books on Mormonism, and if you disagree and want to discuss the issues in a civil manner, then fine. You can post p. #s and quotes and we can discuss those issues from my material.

R. Abanes
on October 10, 2008 at 11:52 am ditchu

What “Insulting language” did he use?

Are you sure he did not give you an argument that you cannot deal with, so suppending the comment is a way to mute the unrest that challanges your authority?

What research did you do prior to writing your books? What prerequsits do you have that qualify you as an authority on “Mormonism”?

These last questions could go a long way to showing that you did not just peice together mis-quoat, roumor, and mis-understanding from an “outside” point of view…

But (if you did it right)you have accurate Information from the proper understanding of an “In-side” point of View.

-D
on October 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm richardabanes

D: What “Insulting language” did he use?

RA: Well, first he compared me to his five year old regarding something, and it went downhill from there — not really conducive to civil discussion.
___________
D: Are you sure he did not give you an argument that you cannot deal with

RA: ROFL. Yeah, I’m sure….
___________
D: … so suspending the comment is a way to mute the unrest that challanges your authority?

RA: Not how I work. And a bit conspiratorial, no?
___________
D: What research did you do prior to writing your books? What prerequsits do you have that qualify you as an authority on “Mormonism”?

RA: Please see the “About Me” page on my website. I have a vast library of primary documents and LDS published books that I have studied for years. In fact, in my book INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM, I even allowed BYU professor Daniel Peterson to write an appendix for the book sharing why he is a Mormon. I vehemently disagree with him, but respect him as a person and a man who is sincere in his views. Please do read my work, and we can discuss it. Links are in my original post.

R. Abanes
___________
D:
on October 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm ditchu

O.K. I will accept your responces to the quest as to the reasoning of suppention, FYI, I hope you did not take any of that as insult, I just have had experience with the tactic used against me when I have delt an argument that shook the foundations of the post (almost never happens from me) and the host could not deal with it.

I am glad to hear that insulting language is not tollareted here.

On the information on your books, I thank you. It does appear that you wrote with an external point of view (I vehemently disagree with him, but respect him as a person and a man who is sincere in his views.). But thank you for being honest with this fact.

I see that you are a Journalist, thus I am sure your education focused in writing, investigation, and (well) Journalism.
I must ask did you take on any Folklore studies?

Thank you again,
-D
on October 10, 2008 at 7:51 pm Todd Wood

Hi Richard. It’s my first time on your blog. I probably don’t see eye to eye with you on our assessments of Rick Warren and the Purpose-driven church philosophy.

But I have read both your books on Mormonism. They are interesting. Thanks for the ongoing interaction. (Of course, there are the multiplications upon multiplications of LDS nuances.)

This is an interesting link. Thanks
on October 10, 2008 at 8:00 pm richardabanes

Hey Todd,

No problem. Welcome to my blog! We can agree to disagree on Warren. God knows he’s not perfect, neither am I. But, as you know, I love the Lord, and do my best to defend the faith (Jude 3). I am so grateful that my books on LDS have helped you and equipped you to share your faith and have answers. And yes, you re right, LDS discussions can be multi-faceted, deeply historical, and complex. Glad you’re here.

peace,

RA
on October 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm Jasgre

Dear Mr. Abanes,

I find your logic on this issue to be fascinating. I have a quick question for you. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Mormon and strongly believe in the teachings of my faith. I understand that some people choose not to refer to my faith as a Christian faith. I believe that I am a Christian; I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal savior and redeemer and the savior of all mankind. I respect your right to disagree with that, and to be honest, it doesn’t really matter to me that much whether you consider me a Christian or not.

My question goes to something a little bit deeper, but I think it applies to this discussion. In trying to understand why you have made such a strong effort to point out that Mormons are not Christians, I noticed on one of your other websites you mentioned that you make these efforts because you hate to see people “not getting the truth about an issue”. I truly appreciate your concern for me, and share your desire to find out what is true. My question is, what is your understanding of how one comes to the truth? I have many evangelical and other Christian friends who have answered that question by saying that the Bible is the source of truth, and I am assuming that you would agree with that (correct me if I’m wrong). But there are so many interpretations of the Bible; how do you know which interpretation is true? I am not trying to be facetious; I have my own understanding of where truth comes from. I am just trying to get a better understanding of where you are coming from and how you are so sure that you are right and I am wrong.
on October 11, 2008 at 4:33 am justice

Well this is the first time I seen this site. Very interesting topic. I may as well put in my 2 cents worth. Thats probably about all its worth to anyone else.

I believe Mormons, as strange as some of their beliefs may be, are nonetheless christian!

Reason?

As far as I am aware, mormons believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that he died for our sins and that we must accept that fact and accept Him as Lord and Saviour in order to be saved.

I do believe that this single fact alone makes the mormon faith a christian one and supercedes any other apparent questionable doctrines that they may have.

The problem I have with a lot of the people that say that mormons are not christians is that they judge a whole religion on its doctrinal differences and do not take into account ones own personal relationship with Christ!

Let me ask you one question…

Can a mormon know who the real Jesus is and have a deep and meaningful relationship with Him?

If the answer is yes then whether someone is a mormon or not becomes irrelevant. It ceases to be about the doctrine and it starts to be about the relationship between a man and his creator.

If the answer is no then all mormons are going to hell.

Excuse me if I find the latter to be irrational!
on October 11, 2008 at 8:34 am richardabanes

Jasgre,

It would be far easier to speak with you about these issue if you understood my position on Mormonism and the full scope of my writings, thoughts, and arguments with regard to Mormonism. I have written over 1,100 pages on the subject in the above two books I reference.

I would ask that you examine that material, or else what will happen is that I will simply begin re-writing to you on this blog the very same thing I have already written in print. I hope you understand.

My short answer to you is that we come to truth through: 1) scripture (the Bible); and 2) direct revelation from God. And they are to be in agreement. God has spoken to me through his Word, as well as through dreams, visions, and that inner voice I have come to know as my Creator, my Heavenly Father.

You asked: “But there are so many interpretations of the Bible; how do you know which interpretation is true?” To be honest, that is an issue so far down the road for you and I, it’s almost moot at this point.

Basically, a good place to start is th fact that all of Christendom agrees there is one God — in agreement with ancient Judaism, out of which Christianity sprang. Right there, we have a conflict between Christianity (based on the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament) and Mormonism (based primarily on the revelations of Joseph Smith). This is not an issue of interpretation of some scattered passages here or there. It is an issue of the very fountain of truth.

R. Abanes

P.S. Welcome.

++++++++++++++

Justice: As far as I am aware, Mormons believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that he died for our sins and that we must accept that fact and accept Him as Lord and Saviour in order to be saved.

RA: This would be consistent with what you will hear from official LDS sources and Mormons. But what you are not hearing are the different meanings they pour into those very “Christian” sounding terms/phrases. It’s like someone saying, “I love to eat hamburgers.” So you take them out to Wendy’s and they hate everything there. You ask why, and when it comes down to it, they are defining “hamburger” to mean what you and I would consider to be a hot dog.

Justice: I do believe that this single fact alone makes the Mormon faith a christian one and supercedes any other apparent questionable doctrines that they may have.

RA: Incorrect. As I noted in the above OP, “A Christian is not merely someone who holds a healthy respect and affinity for the historical person of Jesus Christ. Nor is a Christian someone who simply acts lovingly, gives generously, or behaves graciously. A “Christian” is someone who embraces as their Lord and Savior the Jesus OF THE BIBLE.”

Oprah Winfrey says she’s a Christian and believes in Jesus and calls him her Savior, but when you look at how she explains God and Jesus, she isn’t even close to saying anything remotely similar to what is taught in the Bible. So, you can’t simply hear someone say, “Christian…Savior….Jesus…” and instantly assume they are within what has been understood for 2,000 as “Christianity.”

Justice: do not take into account ones own personal relationship with Christ!

RA: WHICH Christ? That is the question: WHICH Christ?

Mormons don’t worship the same Christ worshiped by Christians. They have a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4). As I pointed out, many people believe in “a” Jesus, but that doesn’t mean it’s “the” Jesus of the Bible. No matter how many times they repeat, “We believe in Jesus as Savior,” it doesn’t change the fact that the LDS Jesus is not the Jesus of Christianity. LDS and we in Christendom are not in of the same fold — Christianity.

The previous LDS president Gordon B. Hinckley made it very clear, as discussed in UTAH newspapers: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times’” (1998).

Since the origins of Mormonism, LDS leaders have sought to distance themselves from Christendom. Only in recent years, has this approach been changed in an effort to blend in with Christendom. Here’s what Mormons believe:

“when the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness” (Brigham Young, JOD 5:73).

‘all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord’s supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 255).

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” (John Taylor, JOD 6:167).

LDS founders merciless attacked Christendom. And even more recent LDS leaders have said that we, in Christendom, don’t have the correct concept of God at all, or of our origins — that we believe in a false god worshiped “in vain,” follow “precepts of men” and are disconnected from the “real God.” (documentation, see Inside Today’s Mormonism, p. 255).

Mormon leaders themselves have separated Mormonism from Christendom — I’m just agreeing with them.

R.Abanes
on October 11, 2008 at 10:42 am justice

Hi R.Abanes and thanks for the reply to my post.

For the record I am not a mormon but I do have some friends that are mormon.

You bring up some good points. Points that I knew you would bring up as they are the same ones that I have seen others use to condemn the mormon church.

I feel I should explain why I believe the way I do…

I have a friend who is a devout mormon. He is a loving father and husband and gives so much of himself to helping others. He loves the Lord very much and lives his life accordingly. He is probably one of the most “christian” men I know.

Now we all know that the only way to heaven is through Christ. Well, according to you, this man is going to hell because apparently the Jesus he loves so much is not the same one that christians in general worship.

No offence but I do think that the real problem here is that you are trying to intellectualize God.

In fact, I believe there has to be a balance between whats in your head and whats in your heart. If you intellectualize enough, soon everyone will be going to hell except you.

Christianity isnt just a belief. Its a way of life. You live the gospel! Not just talk about it.
on October 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm richardabanes

Justice: He loves the Lord very much and lives his life accordingly.

RA: Which Lord? The foundation, fundamental, bottom line, bedrock starting point is different for him than it is for me. Being a good, loving, gentle, kind, patient, giving person does not make you a Christian — there are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and even atheists/humanists who are like that. And just saying “I believe in Jesus” begs the question, “Which Jesus?”

Justice: Well, according to you, this man is going to hell because apparently the Jesus he loves so much is not the same one that christians in general worship.

RA: I didn’t say that first…….the Bible did. And so, I am very sorry, truly, but you have to decide whether you are going to hold views based on the Bible or based on your own personal feelings and love for this man. Choose. But don’t say it can be both ways. It can’t. Sorry, again. Truly, I am.

Justice: No offence but I do think that the real problem here is that you are trying to intellectualize God.

RA: Not at all. if God says there is ONE true God. Then, I am not in the position to deny that. No one is. Even your friend, as wonderful as he is.

Justice: …. soon everyone will be going to hell except you.

RA: Hardly. Believe me, I am far more liberal in this area than most. But Jesus did say, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt. 7:13-14). That’s Jesus. Not me.

R.A.
on October 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm justice

Do you know how many other people in other religious sects believe that you have to believe the way they do or your going to hell?

Are you one of those that believe like that?

If I was to say to you… What you believe is wrong and what I believe is right. You must believe the way I believe or your going to be sorry
How would you react?

What makes the way you have interpreted scripture more right than the way someone else has interpreted it?

If you have interpreted something incorrectly will you go to hell because of it?

If the religion you are a part of teaches something that is not correct and you believe it to be true because you were taught it, will you automatically go to hell?

Just so you know, my mormon friend also believes that you must be baptised into the mormon church in order to be saved. I disagree with that completely but I do not believe for one second that that belief will send him to hell, or that I will go to hell for not believing it.

What Im trying to say is… EVERYONE believes they are right. Including you and I.

So many people hide behind scripture and refuse to use common sense. Don’t you know that a good tree can only bear good fruit? It cannot bear bad fruit!

Like I said before…

You cannot judge any one person by their religion because you do not know the state of their heart and what kind of relationship that person might have with God.

Anyway… I’ve rattled on for long enough. Time for me to get off this computer.

Till next time AR! GBU
on October 12, 2008 at 7:16 am richardabanes

Justice,

The Bible says what the Bible says. If you don’t like it, then I accept you, love you, and hope the best for you. But it says what it says. The same Jesus who talked about heaven, talked about hell. The same Jesus who preached on love, kindness, gentleness, and peace also preached on outer darkness, a godless eternity, and weeping/gnashing of teeth for those who reject God’s plan of salvation. Hence, his comment on the broad road vs. the narrow road.

Look, IF the Bible is true, then that is God’s Word and it contains God’s plan of salvation — and it’s laid out there in a fairly clear manner. If that doesn’t work for you, then reject it. But it’s a package deal, so to speak. You can’t pick and choose a little of this, and a little of that, depending on what YOU like, or what SEEMS right, or what FEELS right. Look at all of it as a continuum. Take it or leave it because it all goes hand in hand. I hope I’m making sense.

R.A.
on October 12, 2008 at 8:38 am dm

Mormons believe they will be “gods” of their own planet one day. We cannot become “gods”. That is what caused the fall of man in the garden–when Satan tempted Eve and said she can be like God. If Satan and Lucifer were brothers, then Jesus is not God. That conflicts with what a “Christian” believes. We believe in God as three Persons..Father , Son and Holy Spirit. The “Sonship” of Jesus does NOT mean he is a son of God in the way we understand (They believe he and Lucifer are Elohim’s “sons”

Mormons believe that Jesus was a created being and one of the sons of Elohim (Just as Lucifer was). We believe that Jesus is God, so he could not be a brother of Lucifer. Just this alone is enough reason that Mormonism is NOT Christianity. They deny the diety of Christ.

Another false teaching Mormon’s believe is that Elohim came down to earth physically and had physical sex with Mary. The Bible says that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit–so another big error.

PS
The way they get around that “God” doctrine they teach is this: We are all “gods”. so then Jesus can still be “god” even if he is brothers with Lucifer. The problem with this is that we are not all “gods”, and we can never be “gods”..well, I guess we can be sicne this is not the TRUE God of the Bible.

They teach also that Elohim is the “god” of our solar system-so there are many other “gods” of other solar systems…so then God is not one God over the entire universe, but small Gods…their God Elohim was once a spirit child like we were, so then we can all be gods of our own solar systems like he is the god over this planet.
If that doesn’t sound like a Science fiction movie I don’t knwp what does!

Again . . . . They teach that Elohim is the father of all us on earth..so because He was “god”, we are “gods” because we were produced by god, so that would mean we are god…having studied Mormonism in detail, I would ask…

- Does that mean we have all the attributes of God?

- Can we be in all places at all times, know all things, create a universe like Elohim did??

- Why did Jesus have to die?

- Can you only become a “god” if you are a Mormon?

- What happens to all the “spirit children” of Elohim, like myslef who rejects this?

- Do I still become a “god” or was I born a “god”??

Some questions for the Mormons out there!
on October 12, 2008 at 3:05 pm dm

If Satan and Lucifer were brothers, then Jesus is not God.

SORRRRRY!! I meant “If Satan and Jesus were brothers, then Jesus is not the God we Christians worship.” Satan is an angel who fell from grace–Jesus is not an angel, he is God.. If you want to get down to it, Jesus created Satan…Jesus was with God the Father and God the Spirit in the beginnign of creation..so how can he be a brother of Satan??

The question is–
Who gets to be God?
We either except that we ARE NOT and never will be God, or we believe as the Mormons that since God once was man, so we can be God.

Richard, what do they believe about the Holy Spirit?
Who was He before??? Do they believe the Bible’s account of Luke, when the angel appeared to Mary and Joseph and said that she was conceived byt he Holy Spirit?? She was a virgin, so how did Elohim have physical sex with her??? How can they believe this??
on October 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm SentimentalLady

Hi

Have you made any attempt to correct the headline which brought us all to your blog?

http://www.ask.com/web?q=mormon&search=%3CDIV+id%3Dsb6%3E%3CDIV+id%3Ds6%3E%3C%2FDIV%3E%3C%2FDIV%3E&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir

It says “Mormonism LEGALLY declared not Christian”, when it should be “…not Protestant”, and links to http://www.Christianity.com.

“…not Protestant” should be no surprise to anyone, and “…not Christian” was not even mentioned in the story.

A misleading headline is not an honest start in trying to make your point.
on October 12, 2008 at 4:03 pm richardabanes

I’m not sure what you’re talking about: Look at top – “Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant.” It has read like this for quite some time. I don’t know anything about that link. I didn’t put it up there. And I clicked the link and it says, “Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant.” Go ahead, click it.

RA
on October 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm ditchu

Thank you for adjusting the title of this Blog. I am glad I made my point and there are people out there that are willing to adjust their position/statment when they find a correction is needed.

I am glad to see honesty and integuraty displaied on the internet, it seems so rare these days… Again thank you,
-D
on October 13, 2008 at 11:17 am SentimentalLady

Hi

You’re not sure what I’m talking about? Please look at the title of the link I’m on right now–reading all these comments:

http://richardabanes.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/mormonism-legally-declared-not-christian/#comments

Look again at that first link I gave you (not the Christianity.com) and scroll down to “News results for mormon”.

Look again at the very first comment posted on this blog. Wouldn’t you say that Randall also arrived here because he was misled by that headline?

It may have been an honest typo and completely unrelated to you or Christianity.com, but I’d sure be embarrassed to have something so deceptive linked to my blog….even if it did increase my readership and afford me the opportunity to make my derivative point.
on October 13, 2008 at 11:21 am richardabanes

Sent,

LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant.”

I can’t change the link that has it linked. I have absolutely no idea how to do that. The title is “Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant.” Now as for the link, and how it’s generated, sorry. Deal with it.

RA
on October 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm Jay

My friend, I would venture to say that unless you are a very rare Mormon, I have read more about Mormonism than you have… I would agree with you that some well-meaning folks do express criticisms of Mormonism, but do so without much personal research or knowledge. I am not one of those people.

You’re correct to suppose that you may not have read more about Mormonism than I have, though I must confess the same about you since I don’t know you. However, because of the way in which you phrased your post it was a reasonable assumption that you probably were repeating things you were told. I only say this because of the bias tone you use when describing Mormon theology. It also makes a difference where you are reading. If you only read from critics of the Church you’ll probably end up with a partially true skewed version of Mormon beliefs, this is what I got from your post.

Partially true, Jay, You failed to respond, but instead, latched on to the one isolated fragment of my sentence that read “for this planet” and turned it into me saying that Elohim was not God for other worlds.

I do not wish to argue things that even I would agree Mormons teach. I only pointed out what you got wrong. This in no way says the rest of your statement was false.

Let’s stop mixing words and playing semantics, Jay… The bottom line: The Jesus Christ Mormons exalt as Savior is of a radically different origin, nature, and character than the Jesus Christ exalted as Savior by Christians. Please, don’t make me list dozens of proofs.

I agree, I don’t like to mince words. The Jesus Christ that Mormons believe in is the Jesus of the New Testament, He raised the dead, he healed the sick and lame, he taught us to love our enemies, and he died on the cross. If you believe in another Jesus then that is your right, I believe in the one I mentioned above. The “different” Jesus argument is silly, as most people can see.

It is true that Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. However, I find ample (strong in fact) evidence to support the LDS belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings united in purpose only.

See the LDS definition of “virgin” above.

The generally accepted definition among LDS members today is:

A person who has never had sexual intercourse.

I just wanted to make sure I was clearly understood.

First, Brigham Young taught this as doctrine, not some little theory on the side. Please read INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM, pp. 184-186 for documentation of that.

I’ll see if I can get your book from the library. I’m always interested to see new information.

If the vast majority of Mormons would agree with the biblical account, then that is accepted and fine by me. But it marks a departure from original LDS teachings, and something needs to be said to phase out that belief from the minds of all Saints. It could certainly be done with an official statement on the Virgin Birth.

I agree completely.
on October 13, 2008 at 2:11 pm richardabanes

JAY: If you only read from critics of the Church you’ll probably end up with a partially true skewed version of Mormon beliefs, this is what I got from your post.

RA: I am a respected religion journalist with 20 books from major publishing houses and two awards. I do my own research.
_____________

JAY: The generally accepted definition among LDS members today is: A person who has never had sexual intercourse. I just wanted to make sure I was clearly understood.

RA: You need to look closer at how LDS leaders have defined “virgin” with respect to Mary. You will find that virgin is actually defined as no sexual intercourse with a MORTAL man. And since Heavenly Father is an IMMORTAL man, well….just add up 2 + 2. This is all documented in my book. I hope you can find one.

R. Abanes
on October 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm ditchu

RA,
You need to take a look at this more closely… As a Mormon I’ll tell you that Jay is right about the definition of “Virgin.”

As a respected Religious Journalist, you might want to listen to the “True” believers more than the critics who don’t fully understand the LDS Faith. If you continue to use a majority of outsiders for your referance you will continue to compound the issues the outside Point of View, which will lead to a major decline in your respectability (as a journalist).

Of cource you know how to do research, but I am puzzled as to why you do not research out members and Church Leaders for interviews on the subjects you write on. They would be quick to clear up your misconceptions of their Faith.

-D
on October 13, 2008 at 3:49 pm richardabanes

D: you might want to listen to the “True” believers more than the critics who don’t fully understand the LDS Faith. If you continue to use a majority of outsiders for your referance you will continue to compound the issues the outside Point of View

RA: Who said anything about listening to critics? Did you read what I wrote at all? I said, “LDS leaders have defined “virgin” with respect to Mary.” Why would you bring up critics when I just referenced your own apostles and prophets? Those are the people I quote in my book, not critics.

D: I am puzzled as to why you do not research out members and Church Leaders for interviews on the subjects you write on.

RA: Again, what are you taking about? You’re starting to worry me. In my book I quote only from your own apostles and prophets. I’m looking at my endnotes on this issue and I see:

LDS Apostle James Talmage
LDS Prophet Ezra Taft Benson
LDS Prophet Brigham Young
LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball
LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith
LDS Apostle Heber J. Grant
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
LDS Prophet Joseph F. Smith
LDS Publication Family Home Evenings

Where are the critics????

R. Abanes
on October 13, 2008 at 5:20 pm dm

Read this from the LDS:

For unbelievers we will quote from the Scriptures – “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Again – “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.” I will now give my scripture – “Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit [p.177] or on a throne, nor how much divinity it may profess, nor what it professes with regard to revealed religion and the account that is given of the Saviour and his Father in the Bible. They may say that they acknowledge Him until doomsday, and he will never own them, nor bestow the Holy Spirit upon them, and they will never have visions of eternity opened to them, unless they acknowledge that Joseph Smith is sent of God. Such people I call unbelievers. They tell about believing in Jesus Christ, but they might as well talk about birds understanding the Hebrew language. This statement is no more positive than true. – JoD 8:176 (September 9, 1860)

So, that would mean that I am of the Antichrist!!!
on October 13, 2008 at 6:22 pm Phil

Interesting article about the appeals court in Arkansas. That strikes me though as something that should never have been allowed in a divorce decree, since it infringes on the rights of not only the former spouses, but also on the rights of their children. There also should be a way to appeal such items in a divorce decree as being unconstitutional. That kind of thing scares me, because we already have ample evidence of the beginnings of religious freedom infringement on the part of of activist judges who take it upon themselves to redefine marriage, which will eventually result in loss of religious freedom, if allowed to stand.

Mr. Abanes, regarding your contention that Mormons are not Christians, and the books you have written on this subject: I think you are a person who is sincere in his beliefs and I think you are trying to do what you feel is the right thing to do. However, I don’t see this kind of discussion as being conducive to cooperation and collaboration between faiths, which is sorely needed during this time of pervasive evil and wickedness throughout the world.

Mormons, evangelicals, and other Christians, have alot in common, as far as their basic moral standards, and these are the things we should focus on, not so much on some “points of doctrine” differences which will always vary from person to person, and from faith to faith, which I personally don’t see as over-riding as basic moral foundational beliefs. It is good and interesting to discuss these “points of doctrine”, but it should be done in a spirit of respect and with an effort to truly understand where the other person is coming from, not second guessing them & trying to pigeonhole their beliefs.

Also, by focusing on the negative instead of the positive, people whose beliefs are attacked are put on the defensive, and then they are likely offended, and their hearts become most likely closed to further influence. I would suggest to you that your purposes, and the purposes of all good people like you and others, would be better served by focusing all the good which we have in common. We certainly don’t have to always agree on all doctrinal points, but it is most helpful to all parties when we combine our efforts to combat the pervasive influence of Satan in our modern world (corrupt media, bad politicians, corrupt cultural influences on our children, etc., etc.)

It is true that historically there was much animosity between LDS and other Protestants in the US (especially in the 1800’s), but remember that the animosity went both ways, and both sides erred in many cases on being too judgemental and critical of the other. I also believe (and hope) that both sides have grown alot in understanding over the years (mainly due to the increase in communication ability and education), to the point where there should be alot more cooperation and understanding between LDS and other Christian faiths.

The LDS leaders have made much effort in this regard in recent years and I would like to see more such efforts on the part of our fellow Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters. Then, if we feel that our fellow brethren and sisters are in error with regards to doctrinal beliefs, perhaps we can persuade them in a loving and understanding manner to come to a better understanding of true doctrine, or perhaps we might come to a better understanding of true doctrine ourselves. In any event, both parties will be edified by showing love and constraint towards the other.

I can see the point to attacking a religion which advocates disobeying the laws of the land, such as Satanism, but Mormonism does not fit that category by any stretch of the imagination. So, in summary, I would suggest to you that, though disagreement and discussion of doctrinal differences is a good thing, it should take 2nd tier to the over-riding positive and good that we have in common, and it should also be done in a spirit of respect and understanding. We should try very hard not to mis-represent their beliefs.
on October 13, 2008 at 8:23 pm justice

Well said Phil.

As for Mr Abanes, all my posts above have been ignored by you. You only see what you want to see. You didnt atually take into consideration anything I posted and it is frustrating to say the least.

Pretty much everything you asked me was already answered in the posts before. Im sorry Mr Abanes but until you stop looking at mormons as evil incarnate and start focusing on the good fruit they produce and their christianity, you will never grow as a christian.

Thankyou for your time.
GBU
on October 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm SentimentalLady

Phil–you’ve said it wonderfully!
on October 13, 2008 at 10:23 pm SentimentalLady

Oh–except for part of the first paragraph. Both parents agreed to raise their children in the Protestant faith, and the father admitted that the LDS church was not Protestant. It’s a shame they couldn’t agree on common ground such as you’ve described, but failing that, I think the right thing would have been for the father to honour the agreement.
on October 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm ditchu

RA,
Did I forget to mention, Interviews?
A good journalist surely knows how to interview people of his subject matter. I myself would avoid writing on, say, muslim fanaticism without interviewing at least a few muslims both Zelots and just the usual praticiner of the faith (non-fanitic).

Why would a respected journalist write based solely on material others have writen? That sounds more like a collage paper than journalism.

-D
on October 14, 2008 at 6:53 am richardabanes

ROFL!!! — Sigh. You guys aren’t even reading are you? Ah well. Some things never change.

And Justice, I think you need some….help. Given your following comments:

JUSTICE #29: Hi R.Abanes and thanks for the reply to my post.
JUSTICE #46: As for Mr Abanes, all my posts above have been ignored by you.

Did someone hijack your account? LOL.

You posted, #27, #29, #31.
I responded, #28, #30, #32.

I guess whoever stole your account and logged in should read the thread before making you look Cuckoo. LoL.

And ditch, I suggest you read #43 again, which directly contradicts your earlier assertion that my books are based on quoting critics. Thank you.

R. Abanes
on October 14, 2008 at 7:12 am richardabanes

Phil,

I made your wall of txt into paragraphs so people can read it easier. Try to do that — it helps folks want to read what you wrote. Walls of text are intimidating. I hope you don’t mind.

RA
on October 14, 2008 at 7:17 am richardabanes

Phil: So, in summary, I would suggest to you that, though disagreement and discussion of doctrinal differences is a good thing, it should take 2nd tier to the over-riding positive and good that we have in common, and it should also be done in a spirit of respect and understanding. We should try very hard not to mis-represent their beliefs.

RA: My response:

1. I’m not sure I see 1st tier vs. 2nd Tier anywhere in the Bible. I see truth being mentioned a lot. I see preaching the true gospel a lot. Certainly, I would agree there are ways to do this, and ways NOT to do it. But I’ve not contradicted any of the biblical guidelines for sharing one’s faith or bringing correction to another. You don’t see me on mian street with hateful signs or waving sacred under-garments on a stick, do you?

2. I mention several of the things we have in common in my book “Inside Today’s Mormonism,” just fyi. In fact, I was so complimentary and tolerant and open to trying to find common ground, that Fundamentalists turned their backs on me and accused me of going “soft” on Mormonism, then proceeded to lie about my own faith and what I believe. (Go figure).

3. I’ve not misrepresented ANY LDS belief. Feel free to quote chapter and page in my books, especially the one on LDS doctrines — Inside Today’s Mormonism (AKA, Becoming Gods).

R. Abanes
on October 14, 2008 at 9:20 am Jay

I have not read the your book that you continually promote here, but I’ll try to get it. However, if I have to judge from your post I would say your research is incomplete, biased and lacks a basic understanding of the LDS faith.

As for the definition of virgin, it matters little to me, and many other LDS members, how any leader of our church has defined the word virgin. LDS leaders are men just like you and I. As such they are subject to pride, aggrandizement, and flattery. It is a mistake to think that just because they hold the title of Prophet or Apostle that their words are flawless.

Such a realization shifts responsibility back on the individual to find truth using a leader’s words as guidance rather than sitting passively accepting pronouncements without question, as does most of the Christian world.
on October 14, 2008 at 9:38 am richardabanes

Jay: your research is incomplete

RA:Hmmmm…doesn’t look like I skimped on research to me.

Inside Today’s Mormonism = 130 pp of JUST endnotes
One Nation Under Gods = 140 pp of JUST endnotes

Jay: As for the definition of virgin, it matters little to me, and many other LDS members, how any leader of our church has defined the word virgin.

RA: What? These are your own latter-day prophets and apostles, speaking at conferences and the ones who are your own general authorities. You don’t care what they say??!! So, who has authority? Who is leading you? How do you determine when they’re speaking as God’s anointed as opposed to just blowing smoke (and on something as important as the virgin birth of all things)? Where does it end? How about the Word of Wisdom? Why not just go out and start drinking coffee and have nice glass of wine with some spaghetti? Surely, that’s not as important as the virgin birth, if you’re willing to blow off their remarks about that.

RA
on October 14, 2008 at 10:58 am ditchu

Didn’t read you books (and I don’t think it will be a good use of my time).

But I still am wondering if you used any interview techniques? As of your comments it looks like you just used lots (and lots, and lots, and…Lots) of quoats from wiriten matterial? Have you led my wrong in this assumption?

-D
on October 14, 2008 at 11:18 am richardabanes

Ditch,

Really, stop it. You know as well as I do the importance of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants — WRITTEN material (your Standard Works, which I quote extensively). You and I also know the significance of the spoken AND written words of your prophets, apostles, and General Authorities. Really, now, , please there’s no reason to do play.

As for interviews, yes, published interviews are noted (not with me, but interviews published elsewhere). And, I’ll do you one better, the Appendix is a full uninterrupted testimony/article by BYU professor Dan Peterson. I’ve also spoken with more Mormons than I can count, including High Priests, BYU prophets, LDS Missionaries, and others. I also stayed with an LDS family in Utah — temple Mormons. Mkay?

RA
on October 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm Jay

Well you didn’t include my whole critic of your comments here. It is not just that your research is incomplete. Feel free to read it again and not edit my words to suit your own purpose. Makes me think that’s what your book will be like. Hmmmm. Maybe I’ll rethink reading it.

What? These are your own latter-day prophets and apostles, speaking at conferences and the ones who are your own general authorities. You don’t care what they say??!! So, who has authority? Who is leading you?

I follow the teachings of Christ; he is my leader and the one I choose to follow. I have a reasonable sense of intelligence and the capacity to compare what is said by my spiritual leaders to scriptures and to use common sense. In short, God gave me a brain and I use it. I would hope that everyone would do the same.

Unfortunately, there are those in every Christian belief system who look to others for their world view, whether that be a Prophet, Pastor, Priest, Pope whatever. I say unfortunate because by doing so they give up the ability to think and accept every pronouncement as if from God. I have seen it in Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and the list continues to grow.

It seems a sad fact that people like someone over them telling them what good and bad. Right or wrong doesn’t matter as long as they have the green light from their spiritual leader. People like to have a black and white view of the world. It helps them to find peace knowing they are right and everyone else is wrong. Life is simpler that way, less complex.

I follow my conscience and understanding of the scriptures. If I’m given advice from an LDS prophet (or anyone else for that matter) I will consider it, but if it doesn’t match up with what I believe is true and right I feel comfortable rejecting it. God knows my heart and I’m comfortable knowing he will be my judge in this matter. I view Prophets as a filter through which the words of God must pass. Because they are men and at time motivated by human desires and passions (as we all are) they sometimes speak from their own heart and not for God. I believe the Spirit and the scriptures can help someone know when someone is speaking for God or from their own heart.
on October 14, 2008 at 12:14 pm richardabanes

Jay: Well you didn’t include my whole critic of your comments here. It is not just that your research is incomplete.

RA: I didn’t??? I thought I did. Your main objections were: 1) I’ve used critics only/mostly; 2) no interviews; 3) misrepresenting LDS teachings. What’s the problem? I didn’t edit anything. I deleting nothing from your posts.

Jay: I follow the teachings of Christ; he is my leader and the one I choose to follow.

RA: AWESOME……Go for it. I agree.

Jay: I follow my conscience and understanding of the scriptures. If I’m given advice from an LDS prophet (or anyone else for that matter) I will consider it, but if it doesn’t match up with what I believe is true and right I feel comfortable rejecting it.

RA: Cool….that’s very very cool to hear. I look forward to hearing your comments on my work.

peace,

RA
on October 14, 2008 at 1:45 pm Brad

I follow my conscience and understanding of the scriptures. If I’m given advice from an LDS prophet (or anyone else for that matter) I will consider it, but if it doesn’t match up with what I believe is true and right I feel comfortable rejecting it.

I’d love to know how the wise old men in SLC would view this statement. If what you’re saying is true, and if it were applicable to every Mormon, then your whole system of prophets could be completely disbanded, b/c you’re just going to go with what YOU believe anyway, rather than what they say. But wait, I thought the LDS church believed in the authoritative system of prophets, since they speak for God? But wait, you’re saying that sometimes they don’t, and that if what they say goes against what you believe, then you ignore it. Who’s right, Jay? The LDS prophet(s), who are supposed to be the witness of God on earth, or you and what you think?

Because they are men and at time motivated by human desires and passions (as we all are) they sometimes speak from their own heart and not for God.

Again, I’d love to know what the old folks in SLC think about this one, too. Deuteronomy 13 & 18 are pretty clear on this – but maybe that goes against what YOU believe, so you ignore it, right?
on October 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm Ross

Here’s my take on Mormonism. Hopefully this contributes something to this discussion.

http://roscoeland.blogspot.com/2008/02/kingdoms-in-conflict-mormons-and.html
on October 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm ditchu

Brad,
“I’d love to know how the wise old men in SLC would view this statement.”

Just ask them.

You don’t know until you ask them.
-D
on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 pm richardabanes

Jay,

If you email me your REAL name, and your ward, I will be most happy to write the the First Presidency, and forward to them your comments, and ask for their reply. I will post the response here. My email is clickable at http://abanes.com/ . I eagerly await your information. If you refuse to email me that information, please say so here, so that I won’t be waiting for it.

R.A.
on October 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm ditchu

First of all I don’t know you and I am not sure you can be trusted.
Second there is nothing in my comments here but asking you if you interviewed anybody ect. and the suggestion to ask the people that you are cerious about their thoughts on something. I’d be hard pressed to waste the time of anybody on getting their opinion on me personally. If you wish you can always email me with the email left with me comments. I do at times check that, but I do not wish to play these silly games with you.

See, my last comment was in direct responce to the previous comment: 59. by brad.

And I don’t know why, RA, you have decided to single me out for the information gathering as you can forward your blog to anyone you want, but I am not so sure what it is that you think would be contulversial with anyone in Church Leadership.

With such conjecture I think I can summise the research you have done: 1. come up with a position on the subject, 2. find information to back up position, 3, argue position. ect.

-D
Good day,
-D
on October 14, 2008 at 9:59 pm ditchu

I think the most contraversial statment I said in this entire Bolg is in comment #14. where I said:

“undefined terminology”?
Like what Christian and Christianity? Look it up in Webster and you will find a working Definition that allows for many Faith groups to be covered under the terms, including Mormonism.

It is strange to me that declairing Mormonism not Protestant makes them un-Christian, However, Penticostolism is Christian (but not Protestant).

Yes, we are differant from the other groups and that makes us distinct amoung Christianity, but each group has their unique claim, or else there would be no way to devide them into these groups.

Good day,
-D

Is that what you are up in arms about?
on October 15, 2008 at 6:12 am Brad

Ditchu #61,

No problem, I am attempting to do so now. I can’t find a link to email SLC on the lds.org website, only a link to mormon.org where you can “chat” with a Mormon missionary. Of course, the usual Mormon caveat of “this is to provide assistance only and is not an official statement of the Church” is listed, so I don’t expect much.

If you have a good way to email SLC directly, let me know. I’ll be happy to email them and ask for their official statement on what was said.
on October 15, 2008 at 6:38 am richardabanes

D: First of all I don’t know you and I am not sure you can be trusted.

RA: I’m a fairly well-known journalist with multiple books from major publishing houses. I’ve been nationally recognized as a professional in the field of religion, writing, speaking, and interviewing: See my bio – http://abanes.com/About_Richard_Abanes.html .

D: Second there is nothing in my comments here but asking you if you interviewed anybody ect. . . . And I don’t know why, RA, you have decided to single me out for the information gathering as you can forward your blog to anyone you want, but I am not so sure what it is that you think would be contulversial with anyone in Church Leadership.

RA: Jay stated:

1. I follow my conscience and understanding of the scriptures. If I’m given advice from an LDS prophet (or anyone else for that matter) I will consider it, but if it doesn’t match up with what I believe is true and right I feel comfortable rejecting it.

2. [LDS Prophets] are men and at time motivated by human desires and passions (as we all are) they sometimes speak from their own heart and not for God.

Then, when questioned about how the General Authorities in Salt Lake City would feel about that, you flippantly replied: “Just ask them. You don’t know until you ask them.

So, now I’d like your information with which to ask them…..please supply it. I’ll ask about your comments to ask them, and Jay’s initial comments about not caring what they thought.

D: …. you will find a working Definition that allows for many Faith groups to be covered under the terms, including Mormonism.

RA: You iwll also find a working definition showing Christians are Monotheists, while Mormons are Polytheists. Ditch, broski, c’mon. Talk serious to me, brother.

D: I think I can summise the research you have done: 1. come up with a position on the subject, 2. find information to back up position, 3, argue position.

RA: Sad. Keep seeking the truth Ditch, don’t let your fears get the best of you. Don’t run. Read what you dare not read. Listen to what you dare not listen to. As they say in The X-Files: “The truth is out there.”

RA
on October 15, 2008 at 7:26 am Brad

Ditchu, just so you know, I did ask for a statement on Jay’s 2 comments. I was able to chat with “Dustin”, evidently a missionary, but essentially got nowhere. Here’s what I was told (I’d paste the conversation, but in the window the chat opens in, I can’t select any of the text to cut and paste, unfortunately – a real handy feature…):

1) Anything Dustin told me is not official – this was made real clear.

2) Dustin said the church also would not be able to make an official comment, due to the volume of comments they probably get (which kind of blows a hole in your “ask them and let them tell you themselves” theory, since they evidently can’t!)

3) Since he couldn’t find anything official, Dustin suggested I search the talks/sermons given by leaders at lds.org (of course, none of them will specifically address these comments)

4) Dustin did try to direct me to a sermon on “The True and Living Church” by Eyring, which was essentially a “hip-hip-hooray” sermon about the Church. Not useful at all, nor did it even remotely address what I had asked about.

5) He said I could write to the Public Affairs office to see what they could do (of course, given his earlier statement that I probably couldn’t get a response, due to volume, I don’t imagine that will do much good)

6) Dustin did say that “he knows our leaders are inspired, and if we want to be blessed we should follow what they say. They don’t counsel in everything (like what car to buy, etc…) but in the important eternal things the counsel they give does matter, and it’s up to us to choose to follow and be blessed, or not follow and lose the blessings.” Of course, we weren’t talking about trivial items such as a car purchase, but about theological topics, so even according to Dustin, what they say does matter. Unless of course you’re Jay, then it really only matters what he believes, b/c unless what the prophets say meshes with what he believes, he won’t follow it.

7) Dustin did say that some take Jay’s viewpoint, but it’s just their viewpoint. The implication being that it’s not necessarily correct, but their opinion (of course, that’s not “official”, b/c with the Mormon church, what is, really?)

Wait, I’ve just been transferred to Michael now. Let’s see what he has to say…

More later. But so far, Ditchu, your method isn’t really working.
on October 15, 2008 at 8:21 am Brad

Oh, it’s getting good with Michael…

Will post soon, Ditchu.
on October 15, 2008 at 10:00 am Brad

Michael wanted to know WHERE I heard such a statement (he was wondering why Jay would say that) – I told him it didn’t matter.

Next from Michael “God has commanded us to listen to his prophets, he speaks to them to guide us. our opinions can’t be more correct than God’s word.” Hmmm, seems pretty on point to me, don’t you think, Ditchu & Jay?

He went on to say “a prophet will never say something that conflicts with our beliefs.” In which case Jay has dreamt up an imaginary scenario that isn’t possible with Mormons.

Michael then said “what the prophet says is doctrine that as mormons we listen to and follow.” Unless of course, like Jay, you believe otherwise, then you can ignore it, right?

Michael then tried to clarify “what i meant earlier about the prophets will never conflict with our beliefs is, the prophets won’t conflict with the BOM or the Bible (words from previous prophets). Ooh, this is getting good now.

He states further “if what we believe conflicts with the scriptures or what prophets have said, then those aren’t the beliefs of the mormon church.” So Jay, I guess if you believe different than the prophet, you’re wrong, buddy, regardless of what you believe.

I then asked Michael this question: “If you say that ‘if what we believe conflicts with the scriptures or what prophets have said, then those aren’t the beliefs of the mormon church’, then are you saying that if anyone goes against what a prophet says, he is going against official beliefs of the mormon church?”

To which Michael graciously replied “Yes.” Nice confirmation. Again, Jay, this means your wrong if your beliefs contradict the prophets.

Of course, these statements are in and of themselves contradictory, b/c official words from the prophets and teachings of the church has changed over the years. To which I asked Michael: “what if words of current prophets or current beliefs of the church are in conflict with prior prophets’ words or prior church teachings – what then?”

Michael responds “prophets are constantly receiving revelation from God, when a prophet speaks, it is God speaking, or modern revelation.” So God has changed his mind, essentially.

So I ask “what about where the Bible says that God is not like a man, that He should change His mind? What about that?”

To which Michael, in true Mormon fashion, doesn’t answer, but instead goes into the oft-repeated mantra of repeating Matthew 7:7 and Moroni 10:3-5 to me (like I haven’t heard those before, right?) Unfortunately, Michael NEVER answered the question about God changing His mind. Wonder why?

In response to what Michael said, I asked “what if your feelings mislead you? How do you know you’re not getting tricked? What about those who have prayed, and received the answer that the church isn’t true?”

To which Michael responds “if your prayer is truly answered by the Holy Ghost, then you will feel peace and happiness, not only that but a sure understanding that what you have prayed about is true.” Oh, I see, it’s the peace, happiness and surety I need.

Michael then said he had to go too, and punted to yet another person (what, do they only have 20 minutes at a time or something?)

Michael transferred me to Ruth, who, without taking a question, immediately transferred me to Justin. I’m starting to lose track of who I’m talking to…

I told Justin: “I have prayed and received an answer that Mormonism isn’t true, and received the same peaceful, happy feeling that Michael mentioned ONLY occurs when its from the Holy Ghost. So, how do we know who’s feeling is right – yours, or mine?”

Justin, after we have some clarifications (b/c evidently he’s having a hard time understanding what I asked him), says: “I can see how you feel and hard to understand at times but everyone receives a witness in some what different ways, but when you receive it you’ll know with out a doubt.” Not helpful, didn’t even answer the question asked. Boy, these guys are sharp…

So I rephrased, hoping he could understand: “We each ask the same question (is the church true?). We each ask the holy spirit. We each receive an answer (mine is no, yours is yes). We each feel good about our answer we’ve received, and believe it is the right one, after much prayer. With this scenario, 1 of 2 things has happened, Justin. Either the Holy Spirit has flat out lied to one of us (which i don’t think you or I would agree would be the case), or one of us is mistaken about our answer. if that’s the case, yet we both feel good about the answer we’ve received, how can either of us know who’s right? There has to be some other way to know, or nobody could ever know.”

To which Justin gives the all-time best answer (which I’ve heard a thousand times): “the holy spirit would never give you a false answer like that.” Fantastic then! Problem solved! Hallelujah! Of course, overlook all the inherent presuppositions that one must be required to have in order to make that statement (e.g. that mormonism is true, and that the holy spirit will confirm it, are 2 big ones), yet if those are presuppositions that are made to answer that way, why ask, if we know it’s already true? Round and round the circular logic train we go, folks…

Justin then proceeds to give the Mormon rah-rah speech: “I encourage you one more time with all your heart, real intent to pray once my Brad I know this is true with all my heart I want you to feel the same.” Oh, right, it was b/c I didn’t pray with ALL my heart, with REAL intent. Maybe if I tried just ONE MORE TIME, it would work, and I’d get a different answer. See the self-fulfilling answer they’re setting up for the person who doesn’t know any better, who wants to be right and believe in something. “Pray hard enough, and you’ll find out it’s true.” Sorry, not the way it works.

Justin then gives one final plea: “I just wanted to say before you pray (he assumed I was about to do so again)…really ponder about what you’re about to pray about and what you want to know and I know you’ll get the answer you’re looking for.” Yep, right back to the old “you can know it if you just try hard enough” routine. Here’s the deal – I do know what I’m praying about, I do know what I’m looking for, and I did get the answer I’m looking for. The self-fulfilling answer routine doesn’t work, Justin.

At this point, Justin also says he has to leave too. So now I’ve been with Dustin, Michael, Ruth (who never spoke) and Justin, in the span of about an hour and a half. Nice continuity, guys. He asks if I want to talk to someone else, or talk to him tomorrow, to which I respond “you’re free to throw me to someone else right now, you’re only the 5th person in like 2 hours.”

And what does Justin do? Transfer me? Nope. He ends the chat. I don’t end it – he ends it. Questions left unanswered, and they always seemed to “have to go” when the questions got tough.

Ditchu, is that “official” enough for you?
on October 15, 2008 at 10:10 am richardabanes

Interesting…..nice work.

RA
on October 15, 2008 at 10:20 am Nathan

For me, the issue isn’t that Mormonism is not Protestant (or Christian for that matter), but that a state court at any level is telling us what is or isn’t “Christian”. This has set a VERY bad precedent.

What now stops the courts from going to a Ku Klux Klan website and determining that Southern Baptists are not “Christian” because of the views of a few very twisted individuals?

The thing we have to be careful of is embracing something that has given us an instantaneous victory (?) but poses a much deeper danger.
on October 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm ditchu

RA,

What is the deal on this Blog? things keep changing…

First it was the title that caught my attention and since it was changed from “Christian” to “Protestant” I am able to leave it vindicated that I did my duty in following through with my argument that Mormonism is a Christian Religion.

Then a question I answered because I saw it asked of me: Ditch, in comment #62 now says Jay.
If I had read it as Jay to begin with I would not have bothered to respond to it.

Now I leave you with the Elton John song… “Cha.Cha.Cha. Changes…”

-D

Jay,
give not your sacred things to Dogs.

Some may never understand the place for personal revelation.

Good luck,
-D
on October 15, 2008 at 1:20 pm richardabanes

1. Title changed by request…

2. Name change due to typo

3. I get personal revelation all the time, thank you very much.

RA
on October 16, 2008 at 6:44 am Brad

That’s right, Jay, don’t cast your pearls before swine, either. Of course, if I were to use that on Ditchu, what do you think he’d say? Yet he has no reservations about using it himself. Very interesting.

I did what Ditchu requested (seek something “official” from the Mormon church regarding what Jay said, to the best of my ability and using the available Mormon outlets), and the answer came back that Jay is wrong in his viewpoint. You can call it whatever you want, your own church missionaries on the “Ask a Mormon” chat room said it’s wrong.

Further, look at the conversations we had, and you’ll see the same non-answers to tough questions, that you so like to harp on yourself, Ditchu.

Asked and answered, my friend.
on October 16, 2008 at 11:50 am ditchu

Brad it was not a request for you it was a suggestion and shall I suggest further: Write a letter to the Presidency of the Church if you want to ask you question directly. Why do you want to connect with these “old men” using the computer which they may not be a afluent with as yourself.

Also, I often use that addage in my own life and when I don’t follow it I am reassured of the truth of its guidance.

About Jay’s comments, Why do you think I care what you two talked about?
I am not standing up for anyone here but you have seemed to lump me in the same boat as Jay just because we may have the slightest possibility to agree on some things. Get over it and deal with your own comments.

Good luck,
-D
on October 16, 2008 at 1:57 pm Brad

Ditchu, do you think they’d say something different in writing a letter, than they would in writing an e-mail? Doubt it.

Do you think they’d say something different than the missionaries I talked to yesterday? If you say “no”, then there’s no need to ask the Presidency, b/c they’d just confirm what I’ve already received as an answer from Mormon representatives. If you say “yes”, then that proves that not everyone has the same view of Mormon authority, and that some people can choose to disregard it if they want to. Further, if the Presidency were to say “yes”, then that means that THEY would admit that THEIR words don’t need to be followed, which would run contrary to the official position!

I mean, I know you don’t SEE the problem, but it sure is there.

If you didn’t care about what Jay and I talked about, why did you comment?

I deal fine with it. You’re now singing the sour grapes tune, Ditchu, and not wanting to discuss, just like you’ve accused others of (including myself) before. Nice flip-flop.
on October 17, 2008 at 12:34 pm ditchu

Brad,

You seem to have asked a question and I provided an a way for you to find the answer. It seemed to me you wanted to know what the leadership would have to say… In asking others you can only assume what they would have said in responce, but I suggested to contact your source for your answers, you came up with an alturnitive and discussed with me your alturnatives (in an antagonising manner) so I must comment to help you understand that I was in no way attacking you or getting into the thick of a discussion that is not inviting.

That is all, what ever you have gleaned from your discussion I am sure you will utilize to your best ability to show how you have always been right about something. Whatever… I again am just suggesting a way to cut through all the “Bull” and get the answer a question you seemed to pose.
-D
on October 18, 2008 at 7:17 am Brad

Do you REALLY think I’ll get an answer on an “official position” from the First Presidency? Do you REALLY think that?

And, as I’ve said before, do you also REALLY think their answer will be any different than the answers I got from the online missionaries? REALLY?

I wasn’t asking b/c I didn’t know, Ditchu. I was doing it for a different reason.
on October 20, 2008 at 11:42 am ditchu

Brad,
Yes I DO think you will get an answer if you ask the First Presidentcy.
I do not know if that answer will differ in any way to the answer you already recieved from a missionary, but you will not find out if you do not ask…

” wasn’t asking b/c I didn’t know, Ditchu. I was doing it for a different reason.”

Is it a fool or a lawer who asks questions that they know the answers to?

-D